MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1511588185 · doi:10.18438/b8zk56

Making a Commitment to EBLIP: The Role of Library Leadership

2007· article· en· W1511588185 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Suzanne F. Grefsheim, Jocelyn A. Rankin, Susan C Whitmore

Bibliographic record

VenueEvidence Based Library and Information Practice · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealth Sciences Research and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationBest practiceProcess (computing)Public relationsPsychologyKnowledge managementLibrary scienceSociologyMedicinePolitical scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose - The role of library management and administration is pivotal to successful adoption of evidence-based practice by library practitioners. As part of its long-standing commitment to a learning organization, the leadership team of the biomedical research library serving the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD, USA planned and implemented a systematic approach to fostering EBLIP practice. Method - The library initiated a program to build an environment conducive to EBLIP that included support and release time for library research projects, formal training in EBLIP methods, and team mentoring as research projects evolved. Library staff participating in the EBLIP initiative were the library’s 32 professional librarians as well as four other staff members. Many had scientific research experience but few if any had designed a library research study. All considered training as very important to the EBLIP initiative, as well as opportunities to collaborate with colleagues and present at professional meetings. Five teams undertook research projects; highlights of these team studies are described briefly. Conclusions - By providing a supportive framework for EBLIP practice, library leadership can successfully engage staff in EBLIP thinking and small research studies. Librarians with some training in the research process and ongoing mentoring can design and conduct studies that find important practical answers to the questions that arise in daily practice.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Editorial
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Commentary
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Theoretical or conceptuallow
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.713
Threshold uncertainty score0.915

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.098
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.193
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Theoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial · Commentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEvidence Based Library and Information PracticeSame topicHealth Sciences Research and EducationFrench-language works237,207